IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3213 OF 2018

Date of Order : 04.12.2025

BETWEEN:

Ms.Lalitha Reddy (Died) & 7 Others … Petitioners

AND

Ms. R.Indira & 3 Others … Respondents

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners-claim

petitioners aggrieved by the order passed in IA No.5540 of 2016 in ASSR No.20551 of 2016 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri M.Pranav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and Sri S.Manjari Ganu, learned counsel representing

Sri B.Sunil Ganu, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein are claim petitioners who earlier filed IA No.5540 of 2016 in ASSR No.20551 of 2016 under Order 41 Rule A read with Section 151 of CPC read with 5 of Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 49 days in preferring the appeal against the dismissal order, dated

06.06.2016 passed in EA No.363 of 2009. The trial Court after perusal of the records has dismissed the condone delay application on the ground that the reasons stated by the claim petitioners for the abnormal delay of more than one and half months is nether satisfactory nor convincing and dismissed the IA No.5540 of 2016 on 03.11.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/claim petitioners submits that delay which is caused was on account of bonafide reason and that petitioner No.8 was suffering from jaundice and body pain since 05.07.2016 to 05.09.2016 and the doctors advised bed rest for four weeks and the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal was not deliberate but only due to medical exigency. It is contended that the trial Court ought to have taken liberal approach, as the condonation delay petition is for only 49 days and by dismissing the said condone delay petition, the petitioners has lost the rightful claim over the suit schedule property and prayed this Court to allow the revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have taken over the suit schedule property through process of Court and respondents are in possession of the suit schedule property and there is nothing further to adjudicate in this matter and the trial Court after perusing the entire records including condone delay petition and the averments made by the learned counsel on either side has rightly dismissed the application which needs no interference.

Now the point for consideration before this Court is:

i) “Whether the trial Court has rightly rejected the condone delay application.

ii) Whether the petitioners have made out any substantial cause for condemning the delay of 49 days.”

Point No.1 & 2:

6. Admittedly, petitioners are not in possession of the suit schedule property and the respondents herein have taken over the possession of the suit schedule property through process of Court in terms of the order passed by the trial Court in EA No.369 of 2009, dated 06.06.2016. The petitioners preferred the appeal before the appellant Court with condonation delay of 63 days, however in the order reads it as 49 days in preferring the appeal and the same was dismissed on 03.11.2017.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners averred that trial Court ought to have taken a liberal approach in condoning the delay, as the delay is only for 49 days and the claim petitioners are offering genuine reason with medical certificate of Doctor stating that the petitioner No.8 was suffering from jaundice since 05.07.2016 to 05.09.2016 and the doctor had advised bed rest for four weeks. However, the trial Court ignoring the said medical certificate filed by the claim petitioners has dismissed the application on the ground that it is neither satisfactory nor convincing.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ummer v. Pottengal Subida and others, (2018) 15 SCC 127